Mike Arrington's dream team has wrong goal

Something about Mike Arrington’s post yesterday has been bugging me. This morning it hit: Mike has the wrong goal.

What is his goal? To beat CNET.

But does a great business or movement EVER get built on top of a goal like that?

No.

Wozniak and Jobs didn’t start Apple to beat IBM. No, they wanted a personal computer for themselves and their friends.

We didn’t go to the moon to beat the Russians. No, we went there to prove it could be done and that we could do it (and beating the Russians was a nice icing on the cake).

We didn’t build the Hubble Telescope to beat the Chinese. No, we wanted to learn more about our universe.

I could keep going.

Lately blogging seems like it has lost its way. Why? Well, looking at TechMeme you can see why: the professionals have taken over and have redefined what blogging is. They’ve (and I include myself in that, because now I’m part of a professional media organization) have taken blogging away from individual people and have corporatized it.

When blogging started getting rolling in 2001-2004 (before Valleywag or TechCrunch) it was a small community who had a few values in common:

1. We were mostly laid off. It was the time of the bust. Most of the entrepreneurs weren’t getting paid, didn’t have any money, and most of the writers, like me, were either working jobs we didn’t like just to ride out the bust, or were totally laid off. No one was showing up to geek dinners back then saying “I just got funded.” Why is this important? Because we had time and we all felt in the same boat.
2. There was one new thing in our lives that we were still figuring out: Google. It wasn’t like today. There wasn’t a new product or service coming out every 20 minutes. There weren’t conferences like Under the Radar (which I’m speaking at today) where there are dozens of new things being shown off. We were lucky to see one new product a month back then.
3. There was an undercurrent of anger and fear. Especially after 9/11. We were angry that our existing experts had mislead us so deeply. How did the VCs lead us down this path? How did the journalists not report the real news? How did our government let 9/11 and the boom/bust happen? We were questioning our value, our industry, our government, and in doing so we were looking for ways to build systems that’d warn us next time around.
4. We were tired of traditional marketing. The Cluetrain Manifesto was our rallying cry, but, really, we didn’t even need that book. We knew something was wrong. All you have to do is stand out in Times Square in New York to see it: companies don’t usually want to tell you anything about their products. Look at a Sony or a Canon camcorder ad. Can you tell them apart? I can’t. So, we wanted to talk with the engineers of those products and find out the truth. Where are the edges? What do they REALLY do? And, when we found out some truth for ourselves, we wanted to compare with other people. “Oh, the Sony doesn’t have an external microphone input,” we’d tell each other on Web forums and blogs.
5. We were tired of hearing “experts” who, we knew, were not expert at all. Especially now that we had Google we could find much better, much more up-to-date, experts ourselves. Last night, for instance, I saw Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, on Twitter. That simply was NOT done in 2001 — we didn’t have access to experts and business leaders like him. We had no idea how to influence people like that, not to mention we had no hope of having a conversation with them. Blogging changed ALL of that.
6. Back to #1, we were having fun BECAUSE we were NOT part of a committee. We were out of work, and doing what we loved cause why do what you don’t love when you aren’t getting paid, right? I’ve been chasing that high ever since. I think the entire industry has been.

There’s more, too, that lashed us together. The ones who showed up to Dana Street Cafe in Mountain View back in 2002 (we held little blogger meetups there) were geeks. We had a love of technology. That still binds us together today.

Anyway, I’m getting off track. Where am I going with this? Well, I want to explain that none of us in those early days woke up and said “it’s our goal to beat CNET.” That isn’t what drove us to stay up all night and write (some of us wrote words on screen, like me, others stayed up all night to write code to build better conversational tools, like Evan Williams at Blogger, or Ben and Mena Trott at Six Apart). It was our goal to experiment and build a new way of sharing information. We knew information had power, because those who had access to information before everyone else (hello Henry Blodgett) got rich, while the rest of us poor shlubs got fired (anyone remember the Website Fucked Company? I do, it was the Valleywag of its day and we all read it, even when trying to pretend we didn’t).

So, what’s the right goal? What got me up at 6 a.m. this morning?

1. Discovery. I love a good discovery. Why do I read FriendFeed every few hours now? Because I keep discovering cool stuff there. Why do I go to conferences like today’s Under the Radar? Because developers keep pulling me aside and saying “can I show you something?” (Even this week, at Jeff Pulver’s conference, a developer did just that and showed me a new competitor to FriendFeed which looked freaking awesome).
2. Getting smarter. I want to be smarter. Why? Because I find that the more I understand the world around me, the more I can enjoy it. I want to hang around smarter people, hear from smarter people than me (that’s why conferences like Pop!Tech and TED are so interesting to people), and read posts from smarter people than me (Google Reader, please fix your speed problems!)
3. Having interesting experiences. Tomorrow I’m going wine tasting with Gary Vaynerchuk. Have you ever watched his wine show? If you care about wine, you should. It’s really great and every show about 60,000 people watch and he usually gets hundreds of comments per show. I guarantee that going wine tasting with him will be an interesting experience. We all want more experiences like that.
4. Access to things that we don’t usually get access to. Earlier this week at IBM Research I used their microscope to move an atom. How many people in the world have done that? I figure fewer than 1,000 and maybe even fewer than 200 — they simply don’t have enough space in the lab to get more people access than that. So there’s gotta be some other way for a lot more people to have that experience, which is why I do video.
5. Comparing notes. If I find a new wine, guess what I do? I Twitter Gary and ask him about what he thinks. He usually has something to say. But, what about other people in his community? Absolutely! And note comparing is a HUGE part of what comments and FriendFeed is all about.

So, to wrap this up, since I’m supposed to get over to the Under the Radar conference: how could Mike Arrington get me onto his dream team?

Stop talking about killing CNET. Start telling me about how we can:

1. Build a stronger community. Stronger=smarter. Stronger=more informed. Stronger=more efficient. Stronger=more empathetic.
2. Get me experiences I don’t yet have access to. A lot of what TechCrunch does is get me inside of companies. At its best, TechCrunch tells you about new services that you didn’t know about. It brings you inside the walls of companies so we can make more informed decisions about where to work, who to partner with, what to adopt.
3. Have a bigger purpose. Building a new thing is more noble than tearing something down. Truth be told, CNET has done a fine job of tearing itself down over the years without any help from a bunch of bloggers. I used to visit news.com several times a day. Today that behavior has been replaced by FriendFeed. Why? Cause FriendFeed brings me everyday people who tell me more interesting stuff than CNET has been telling me.
4. Appeal to me with something other than “you can make more money.” One of the guys who pitched me told me “you can make more money with me.” I turned him down, cause I really don’t care. Ask any dead guy whether making more money really mattered. Now, yes, money does matter, and it does help get you some of the above (better experiences, etc) but I found I can get those things without being rich.

Anyway, that’s enough ranting. Now I’m off to the Under the Radar Conference. Hopefully I find some great new technology and I hear an interesting story about how it was built. I’ll join a “dream team” that shows me how to do all of this better, how about you?

Comments

  1. “We didn’t go into World War II to beat Hilter. No, we went into it to protect our principles.”

    Not really, no.

    We went into World War II to beat Japan, who’d just surprise attacked us. Principle had little to do with it, unless “fight back when attacked” is a principle.

    If we’d fought WWII on principle, we’d have joined the war in 1939 when Hitler was rampaging through Europe.

  2. “We didn’t go into World War II to beat Hilter. No, we went into it to protect our principles.”

    Not really, no.

    We went into World War II to beat Japan, who’d just surprise attacked us. Principle had little to do with it, unless “fight back when attacked” is a principle.

    If we’d fought WWII on principle, we’d have joined the war in 1939 when Hitler was rampaging through Europe.

  3. “We didn’t go into World War II to beat Hilter. No, we went into it to protect our principles.”

    Not really, no.

    We went into World War II to beat Japan, who’d just surprise attacked us. Principle had little to do with it, unless “fight back when attacked” is a principle.

    If we’d fought WWII on principle, we’d have joined the war in 1939 when Hitler was rampaging through Europe.

  4. If we keep defining blogs technologically, we will keep running into these differences. Technologically a simple formatted site, with chronological entries and a very simple cms is a weblog…

    But isn’t it more of a feeling. A weblog is a personal page run by a single individual (groups of friends belong to Facebook and Myspace). Blogs are not journalists doing there jobs together on a page. We call this news sites…

    Beating CNET has nothing todo with blogging. It is a federated group of professional journalist trying to be a media company.

    Micheal, you are no blogger…

  5. If we keep defining blogs technologically, we will keep running into these differences. Technologically a simple formatted site, with chronological entries and a very simple cms is a weblog…

    But isn’t it more of a feeling. A weblog is a personal page run by a single individual (groups of friends belong to Facebook and Myspace). Blogs are not journalists doing there jobs together on a page. We call this news sites…

    Beating CNET has nothing todo with blogging. It is a federated group of professional journalist trying to be a media company.

    Micheal, you are no blogger…

  6. Hello Robert! First time commenting on your blog!

    I do appreciate the fact that blogging and social media do provide interesting new ways for people to get in contact. In particular, the access to people who might not have been been reachable otherwise is a wonderful benefit of social media and Web 2.0.

    Mike Arrington does allude to an important point, however: we all have limited attention span and as more and more blogs and venues pop up, there do appear to be small shares of attention span to capture. However, his more pragmatic point is that maybe the VC money is looking for the BIG payoff and the stakes are therefore multiplying.

    (Of course, expanding the total blog reading audience might offset that problem…)

    Can big money, talent, and hard work kill off a competitor or two? Sure. Is that really a worthwhile accomplishment? It depends. If it’s an investment decision, then it might be from that perspective. It’s kind of short sighted, though.

    I do like your goals, though, based in the acquisition of knowledge and experience.

  7. Hello Robert! First time commenting on your blog!

    I do appreciate the fact that blogging and social media do provide interesting new ways for people to get in contact. In particular, the access to people who might not have been been reachable otherwise is a wonderful benefit of social media and Web 2.0.

    Mike Arrington does allude to an important point, however: we all have limited attention span and as more and more blogs and venues pop up, there do appear to be small shares of attention span to capture. However, his more pragmatic point is that maybe the VC money is looking for the BIG payoff and the stakes are therefore multiplying.

    (Of course, expanding the total blog reading audience might offset that problem…)

    Can big money, talent, and hard work kill off a competitor or two? Sure. Is that really a worthwhile accomplishment? It depends. If it’s an investment decision, then it might be from that perspective. It’s kind of short sighted, though.

    I do like your goals, though, based in the acquisition of knowledge and experience.

  8. If we keep defining blogs technologically, we will keep running into these differences. Technologically a simple formatted site, with chronological entries and a very simple cms is a weblog…

    But isn’t it more of a feeling. A weblog is a personal page run by a single individual (groups of friends belong to Facebook and Myspace). Blogs are not journalists doing there jobs together on a page. We call this news sites…

    Beating CNET has nothing todo with blogging. It is a federated group of professional journalist trying to be a media company.

    Micheal, you are no blogger…

  9. Hello Robert! First time commenting on your blog!

    I do appreciate the fact that blogging and social media do provide interesting new ways for people to get in contact. In particular, the access to people who might not have been been reachable otherwise is a wonderful benefit of social media and Web 2.0.

    Mike Arrington does allude to an important point, however: we all have limited attention span and as more and more blogs and venues pop up, there do appear to be small shares of attention span to capture. However, his more pragmatic point is that maybe the VC money is looking for the BIG payoff and the stakes are therefore multiplying.

    (Of course, expanding the total blog reading audience might offset that problem…)

    Can big money, talent, and hard work kill off a competitor or two? Sure. Is that really a worthwhile accomplishment? It depends. If it’s an investment decision, then it might be from that perspective. It’s kind of short sighted, though.

    I do like your goals, though, based in the acquisition of knowledge and experience.

  10. damn… #3 bet me to it… lol…. we most certainly went to the moon to beat the Russians…. there was no other motivation at the time.. if we think the government is into spending billions of dollars to educate school-kids about moon rocks then we are lost in a quasi-utopian daydream… (WWT will do more for space education than all 6 moon landings combined…. but i digress…. AGAIN! lol)

  11. damn… #3 bet me to it… lol…. we most certainly went to the moon to beat the Russians…. there was no other motivation at the time.. if we think the government is into spending billions of dollars to educate school-kids about moon rocks then we are lost in a quasi-utopian daydream… (WWT will do more for space education than all 6 moon landings combined…. but i digress…. AGAIN! lol)

  12. Way to put us back on track Scoble!

    However, for some people, politics is all they have now. They abandoned principles left and right and so they can only stick to what they now have.

  13. Way to put us back on track Scoble!

    However, for some people, politics is all they have now. They abandoned principles left and right and so they can only stick to what they now have.

  14. damn… #3 bet me to it… lol…. we most certainly went to the moon to beat the Russians…. there was no other motivation at the time.. if we think the government is into spending billions of dollars to educate school-kids about moon rocks then we are lost in a quasi-utopian daydream… (WWT will do more for space education than all 6 moon landings combined…. but i digress…. AGAIN! lol)

  15. Way to put us back on track Scoble!

    However, for some people, politics is all they have now. They abandoned principles left and right and so they can only stick to what they now have.

  16. Robet… the world was captivated because man landed on the moon. It’s hard not to me moved by such an event… the argument is in the motivation behind the missions is all.

    But i wasn’t trying to dilute your poignant post… i though i would be an early comment.. hehehe.. but it landed right after yours making me look argumentative… not my intent. But i do stand by my opinion none the less. :)

    p.s. great post… mike stirred something up here… hehehe.

  17. Robet… the world was captivated because man landed on the moon. It’s hard not to me moved by such an event… the argument is in the motivation behind the missions is all.

    But i wasn’t trying to dilute your poignant post… i though i would be an early comment.. hehehe.. but it landed right after yours making me look argumentative… not my intent. But i do stand by my opinion none the less. :)

    p.s. great post… mike stirred something up here… hehehe.

  18. Robet… the world was captivated because man landed on the moon. It’s hard not to me moved by such an event… the argument is in the motivation behind the missions is all.

    But i wasn’t trying to dilute your poignant post… i though i would be an early comment.. hehehe.. but it landed right after yours making me look argumentative… not my intent. But i do stand by my opinion none the less. :)

    p.s. great post… mike stirred something up here… hehehe.

  19. Matt: I don’t remember Kennedy selling the moon shot to the American people by telling them “we must beat the Russians by the end of the decade.”

    Why didn’t he say that, if it were the truth? Because it simply doesn’t inspire.

    But, “we will go to the moon?” That inspires. Listen to John Kennedy’s speech again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTyYM-dUgCI

    This is such a great speech.

  20. Matt: I don’t remember Kennedy selling the moon shot to the American people by telling them “we must beat the Russians by the end of the decade.”

    Why didn’t he say that, if it were the truth? Because it simply doesn’t inspire.

    But, “we will go to the moon?” That inspires. Listen to John Kennedy’s speech again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTyYM-dUgCI

    This is such a great speech.

  21. Matt: I don’t remember Kennedy selling the moon shot to the American people by telling them “we must beat the Russians by the end of the decade.”

    Why didn’t he say that, if it were the truth? Because it simply doesn’t inspire.

    But, “we will go to the moon?” That inspires. Listen to John Kennedy’s speech again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTyYM-dUgCI

    This is such a great speech.

  22. Excellent post, Robert. I love your focus on building up rather than tearing down and think it’s beyond time the blog community got a bit nicer and more supportive of technology. It’s why we’re all here, after all.

    Your desire to be smarter is one that’s rare in blogs these days and it’s so nice to hear. I rave about Twine because it’s made me smarter about all manner of subjects; same with FriendFeed. The problem with a large number of pundits, though, is that they don’t want to admit to ignorance on anything. So to compensate, they dash off ranting posts to distract readers from the real issues at hand. Not that I’m pointing any fingers of course. ; )

  23. Excellent post, Robert. I love your focus on building up rather than tearing down and think it’s beyond time the blog community got a bit nicer and more supportive of technology. It’s why we’re all here, after all.

    Your desire to be smarter is one that’s rare in blogs these days and it’s so nice to hear. I rave about Twine because it’s made me smarter about all manner of subjects; same with FriendFeed. The problem with a large number of pundits, though, is that they don’t want to admit to ignorance on anything. So to compensate, they dash off ranting posts to distract readers from the real issues at hand. Not that I’m pointing any fingers of course. ; )

  24. Excellent post, Robert. I love your focus on building up rather than tearing down and think it’s beyond time the blog community got a bit nicer and more supportive of technology. It’s why we’re all here, after all.

    Your desire to be smarter is one that’s rare in blogs these days and it’s so nice to hear. I rave about Twine because it’s made me smarter about all manner of subjects; same with FriendFeed. The problem with a large number of pundits, though, is that they don’t want to admit to ignorance on anything. So to compensate, they dash off ranting posts to distract readers from the real issues at hand. Not that I’m pointing any fingers of course. ; )

  25. You can’t have it both ways: you admit to being a “corporate” blogger, complaining about how corporations have homogenized the blogosphere, and then try to articulate goals for making things “authentic” again. There is room for trying to kill CNET and there is room for the goals you articulate, but at your level of influence, I don’t think you are in a place to tell the tiny people how to blog or to try to make corporate bloggers seem more like tiny bloggers.

  26. You can’t have it both ways: you admit to being a “corporate” blogger, complaining about how corporations have homogenized the blogosphere, and then try to articulate goals for making things “authentic” again. There is room for trying to kill CNET and there is room for the goals you articulate, but at your level of influence, I don’t think you are in a place to tell the tiny people how to blog or to try to make corporate bloggers seem more like tiny bloggers.

  27. You can’t have it both ways: you admit to being a “corporate” blogger, complaining about how corporations have homogenized the blogosphere, and then try to articulate goals for making things “authentic” again. There is room for trying to kill CNET and there is room for the goals you articulate, but at your level of influence, I don’t think you are in a place to tell the tiny people how to blog or to try to make corporate bloggers seem more like tiny bloggers.

  28. Good one robert. Was thinking if I should comment on you blog or on FF, I decided on both (which is a shortcoming of FF really);-) I believe that services like friendfeed and Twitter actually help the good stuff appear. In a blog you need lots of readers to be able to spread your message, otherwise it might never be seen. That is why anyone non-professional can’t compete with the pro’s. But FF and Twitter allow us to send our message across way beyond the number of blog readers. If it’s good, someone is bound to hear it and pick it up. It’s putting the power back in the hands of the readers really. What happens is that we now are forced to compete on quality and great stories instead of on traffic (the breaking news everyone already knew about), which is a great thing!

  29. Good one robert. Was thinking if I should comment on you blog or on FF, I decided on both (which is a shortcoming of FF really);-) I believe that services like friendfeed and Twitter actually help the good stuff appear. In a blog you need lots of readers to be able to spread your message, otherwise it might never be seen. That is why anyone non-professional can’t compete with the pro’s. But FF and Twitter allow us to send our message across way beyond the number of blog readers. If it’s good, someone is bound to hear it and pick it up. It’s putting the power back in the hands of the readers really. What happens is that we now are forced to compete on quality and great stories instead of on traffic (the breaking news everyone already knew about), which is a great thing!

  30. Good one robert. Was thinking if I should comment on you blog or on FF, I decided on both (which is a shortcoming of FF really);-) I believe that services like friendfeed and Twitter actually help the good stuff appear. In a blog you need lots of readers to be able to spread your message, otherwise it might never be seen. That is why anyone non-professional can’t compete with the pro’s. But FF and Twitter allow us to send our message across way beyond the number of blog readers. If it’s good, someone is bound to hear it and pick it up. It’s putting the power back in the hands of the readers really. What happens is that we now are forced to compete on quality and great stories instead of on traffic (the breaking news everyone already knew about), which is a great thing!

  31. Yeah I think you put your finger on what was bugging me about that post, too. We need to encourage bloggers that are passionate, that would blog about tech because they love technology and do it even if they made no money at it. Your list 1 – 4 at the bottom of the post is a great start.

  32. Yeah I think you put your finger on what was bugging me about that post, too. We need to encourage bloggers that are passionate, that would blog about tech because they love technology and do it even if they made no money at it. Your list 1 – 4 at the bottom of the post is a great start.

  33. I couldn’t get past “We went into WWII to protect our principles.” I’m entirely fuzzy on what principles that would be, and I think that the Jews that were refused entry to the US in 1940 would probably be even more fuzzy, if they weren’t all dead.

    The US entered WWII when they were attacked directly. The only principle they were defending was the Monroe doctrine.

  34. I couldn’t get past “We went into WWII to protect our principles.” I’m entirely fuzzy on what principles that would be, and I think that the Jews that were refused entry to the US in 1940 would probably be even more fuzzy, if they weren’t all dead.

    The US entered WWII when they were attacked directly. The only principle they were defending was the Monroe doctrine.

  35. I couldn’t get past “We went into WWII to protect our principles.” I’m entirely fuzzy on what principles that would be, and I think that the Jews that were refused entry to the US in 1940 would probably be even more fuzzy, if they weren’t all dead.

    The US entered WWII when they were attacked directly. The only principle they were defending was the Monroe doctrine.

  36. Yeah I think you put your finger on what was bugging me about that post, too. We need to encourage bloggers that are passionate, that would blog about tech because they love technology and do it even if they made no money at it. Your list 1 – 4 at the bottom of the post is a great start.

  37. Mike: you bring up an interesting point. But that’s why the comments here are open. This isn’t a corporate blog and it’s not a committee. Yet.

    And when it does get corporatized and turned into a committee-run thing, we all know where to run: FriendFeed.

    After that gets corporatized and turned into a committee-run thing, there will be another thing to run off to.

    It’s the cycle of life on online communities.

    Remember, we all once were on AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy! :-)

    And even though I’ve joined up with a professional journalistic brand, Fast Company, I sit here in my house typing to you without an editor, without a committee, without checking whether my post is “OK” or not.

    Those are HUGE changes from how CNET’s journalists get to work.

  38. Mike: you bring up an interesting point. But that’s why the comments here are open. This isn’t a corporate blog and it’s not a committee. Yet.

    And when it does get corporatized and turned into a committee-run thing, we all know where to run: FriendFeed.

    After that gets corporatized and turned into a committee-run thing, there will be another thing to run off to.

    It’s the cycle of life on online communities.

    Remember, we all once were on AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy! :-)

    And even though I’ve joined up with a professional journalistic brand, Fast Company, I sit here in my house typing to you without an editor, without a committee, without checking whether my post is “OK” or not.

    Those are HUGE changes from how CNET’s journalists get to work.

  39. “They’ve (and I include myself in that, because now I’m part of a professional media organization) have taken blogging away from individual people and have corporatized it.”

    Not true. No one has taken away my personal blog or voice, http://www.allthepages.org/, thank you very much.

    It is true that there are more kinds of bloggers now, and I’ve recently been unsubscribing from “pro” bloggers who only publish to meet a schedule w/out actually having anything to say.

  40. “They’ve (and I include myself in that, because now I’m part of a professional media organization) have taken blogging away from individual people and have corporatized it.”

    Not true. No one has taken away my personal blog or voice, http://www.allthepages.org/, thank you very much.

    It is true that there are more kinds of bloggers now, and I’ve recently been unsubscribing from “pro” bloggers who only publish to meet a schedule w/out actually having anything to say.

  41. Mike: you bring up an interesting point. But that’s why the comments here are open. This isn’t a corporate blog and it’s not a committee. Yet.

    And when it does get corporatized and turned into a committee-run thing, we all know where to run: FriendFeed.

    After that gets corporatized and turned into a committee-run thing, there will be another thing to run off to.

    It’s the cycle of life on online communities.

    Remember, we all once were on AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy! :-)

    And even though I’ve joined up with a professional journalistic brand, Fast Company, I sit here in my house typing to you without an editor, without a committee, without checking whether my post is “OK” or not.

    Those are HUGE changes from how CNET’s journalists get to work.

  42. “They’ve (and I include myself in that, because now I’m part of a professional media organization) have taken blogging away from individual people and have corporatized it.”

    Not true. No one has taken away my personal blog or voice, http://www.allthepages.org/, thank you very much.

    It is true that there are more kinds of bloggers now, and I’ve recently been unsubscribing from “pro” bloggers who only publish to meet a schedule w/out actually having anything to say.

  43. mike: true, but blogging is being defined by the ones at the top of the lists, mostly professional journalists and committees, er, companies run as groups.

    Me? I’m spending more time over on FriendFeed. See you there! :-)

  44. mike: true, but blogging is being defined by the ones at the top of the lists, mostly professional journalists and committees, er, companies run as groups.

    Me? I’m spending more time over on FriendFeed. See you there! :-)

  45. mike: true, but blogging is being defined by the ones at the top of the lists, mostly professional journalists and committees, er, companies run as groups.

    Me? I’m spending more time over on FriendFeed. See you there! :-)

  46. @# 12 (robert) It’s a fantastic speech… the third most pride-invoking and motivating speech in the history of the United States, imho.

    Compiled into the tragedy of the entire story is that the man who brought the world to the edges of their seats did not live to see his vision realized. It goes from motivational to sad. Sadder, yet, when we realize (after honestly thinking about it and not wondering how to strengthen past opinions, but just noodle it outright … there are clues throughout “…this United States was not built by those who rested….” subtle uses of words like “conquer” to make the russian heads uncomfortable and cleverly using flexible words like “enterprised” to stregthen capitalism… it’s all there… heheh ) that it was motivated entirely out of competition. The Russians knew it, kids knew it, parents knew it, the world knew it. Would JFK have been the wise orator we fondly remember today had he been a fear-monger or a fight-picker? Think of the history in this speech:

    “We must advance our technology beyond that of the Russians. We will set higher goals than them, unreachable, impossible goals. Then we will accomplish those goals and that will put the Russian war machine at ease for at least a decade or two. We cannot possibly lose this effort now that I called the Russians out directly. If they get there first I have invited the banner of defeat with this honest speech. I wish I had something to the nature of, ‘We will do it because it is the right thing to do… not for any other reason… ‘ Yes, as a matter of fact I should have emphasized that it was for no other reason…”

    hehehe.. I’m not sure that speech would be such a hot youtube item… but that would have been the truth.

    All that aside, (ironically disagreeing about the moon thing) because: You, Robert Scoble, are what I love about bloggers… I thought i sensed it in Mike’s post, too… but I don’t know any of you “A-Listers” never met anyone, all i know is what i’ve read over the years. You, sir, are the most genuine person in the blogosphere… wether you are just really smart and no better than to say stupid, hurtful shit about people for the public record, or you are just generally a decent person… it make’s me watch every video you make and read every word of your blog (and god dammit, man, you can type a lot of words…. lol… you owe my employer some $$ i think.)

  47. @# 12 (robert) It’s a fantastic speech… the third most pride-invoking and motivating speech in the history of the United States, imho.

    Compiled into the tragedy of the entire story is that the man who brought the world to the edges of their seats did not live to see his vision realized. It goes from motivational to sad. Sadder, yet, when we realize (after honestly thinking about it and not wondering how to strengthen past opinions, but just noodle it outright … there are clues throughout “…this United States was not built by those who rested….” subtle uses of words like “conquer” to make the russian heads uncomfortable and cleverly using flexible words like “enterprised” to stregthen capitalism… it’s all there… heheh ) that it was motivated entirely out of competition. The Russians knew it, kids knew it, parents knew it, the world knew it. Would JFK have been the wise orator we fondly remember today had he been a fear-monger or a fight-picker? Think of the history in this speech:

    “We must advance our technology beyond that of the Russians. We will set higher goals than them, unreachable, impossible goals. Then we will accomplish those goals and that will put the Russian war machine at ease for at least a decade or two. We cannot possibly lose this effort now that I called the Russians out directly. If they get there first I have invited the banner of defeat with this honest speech. I wish I had something to the nature of, ‘We will do it because it is the right thing to do… not for any other reason… ‘ Yes, as a matter of fact I should have emphasized that it was for no other reason…”

    hehehe.. I’m not sure that speech would be such a hot youtube item… but that would have been the truth.

    All that aside, (ironically disagreeing about the moon thing) because: You, Robert Scoble, are what I love about bloggers… I thought i sensed it in Mike’s post, too… but I don’t know any of you “A-Listers” never met anyone, all i know is what i’ve read over the years. You, sir, are the most genuine person in the blogosphere… wether you are just really smart and no better than to say stupid, hurtful shit about people for the public record, or you are just generally a decent person… it make’s me watch every video you make and read every word of your blog (and god dammit, man, you can type a lot of words…. lol… you owe my employer some $$ i think.)

  48. Oh, and just to chime in on the moon speech, here’s another speech on the moon mission, given a year earlier:
    http://www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/speeches/kennedy_space.html

    Sputnik is mentioned in the first sentence. The phrase “Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines” appears right before the bit about reaching the moon in this decade.

    I think you should just change your last name to Fisk.

  49. Oh, and just to chime in on the moon speech, here’s another speech on the moon mission, given a year earlier:
    http://www.homeofheroes.com/presidents/speeches/kennedy_space.html

    Sputnik is mentioned in the first sentence. The phrase “Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines” appears right before the bit about reaching the moon in this decade.

    I think you should just change your last name to Fisk.

  50. @# 12 (robert) It’s a fantastic speech… the third most pride-invoking and motivating speech in the history of the United States, imho.

    Compiled into the tragedy of the entire story is that the man who brought the world to the edges of their seats did not live to see his vision realized. It goes from motivational to sad. Sadder, yet, when we realize (after honestly thinking about it and not wondering how to strengthen past opinions, but just noodle it outright … there are clues throughout “…this United States was not built by those who rested….” subtle uses of words like “conquer” to make the russian heads uncomfortable and cleverly using flexible words like “enterprised” to stregthen capitalism… it’s all there… heheh ) that it was motivated entirely out of competition. The Russians knew it, kids knew it, parents knew it, the world knew it. Would JFK have been the wise orator we fondly remember today had he been a fear-monger or a fight-picker? Think of the history in this speech:

    “We must advance our technology beyond that of the Russians. We will set higher goals than them, unreachable, impossible goals. Then we will accomplish those goals and that will put the Russian war machine at ease for at least a decade or two. We cannot possibly lose this effort now that I called the Russians out directly. If they get there first I have invited the banner of defeat with this honest speech. I wish I had something to the nature of, ‘We will do it because it is the right thing to do… not for any other reason… ‘ Yes, as a matter of fact I should have emphasized that it was for no other reason…”

    hehehe.. I’m not sure that speech would be such a hot youtube item… but that would have been the truth.

    All that aside, (ironically disagreeing about the moon thing) because: You, Robert Scoble, are what I love about bloggers… I thought i sensed it in Mike’s post, too… but I don’t know any of you “A-Listers” never met anyone, all i know is what i’ve read over the years. You, sir, are the most genuine person in the blogosphere… wether you are just really smart and no better than to say stupid, hurtful shit about people for the public record, or you are just generally a decent person… it make’s me watch every video you make and read every word of your blog (and god dammit, man, you can type a lot of words…. lol… you owe my employer some $$ i think.)

  51. You are bang on the money there Robert. I need a sense of self-purpose to get up in the morning. Yep, beating the opposition is great, but more often that not that positions you as someone who reacts.

    I’m good at reacting, but I’m better at being proactive. I enjoy challenges that others have not faced – they may not be about conquering the final frontier of space, but facing a real challenge is as big an invigorator/wall as I can ask for.

    Give me the choice of a getting to point A across the fields v same old sidewalk and I’ll take the field route every time.

  52. You are bang on the money there Robert. I need a sense of self-purpose to get up in the morning. Yep, beating the opposition is great, but more often that not that positions you as someone who reacts.

    I’m good at reacting, but I’m better at being proactive. I enjoy challenges that others have not faced – they may not be about conquering the final frontier of space, but facing a real challenge is as big an invigorator/wall as I can ask for.

    Give me the choice of a getting to point A across the fields v same old sidewalk and I’ll take the field route every time.

  53. p.s. went and checked out the speech again… do the same. ;) he doesn’t even hide the fact that it’s about besting the soviets.

  54. p.s. went and checked out the speech again… do the same. ;) he doesn’t even hide the fact that it’s about besting the soviets.

  55. p.s. went and checked out the speech again… do the same. ;) he doesn’t even hide the fact that it’s about besting the soviets.

  56. You are bang on the money there Robert. I need a sense of self-purpose to get up in the morning. Yep, beating the opposition is great, but more often that not that positions you as someone who reacts.

    I’m good at reacting, but I’m better at being proactive. I enjoy challenges that others have not faced – they may not be about conquering the final frontier of space, but facing a real challenge is as big an invigorator/wall as I can ask for.

    Give me the choice of a getting to point A across the fields v same old sidewalk and I’ll take the field route every time.

  57. “mike: true, but blogging is being defined by the ones at the top of the lists, mostly professional journalists and committees, er, companies run as groups.”

    Somewhat of an inconsequential topic to discuss/argue about, but here goes :-)

    To me, blogging is a) hard to define, b) certainly not defined by anyone at the top of anything, and c) it is what it is.

    Meaning that all of us who blog define blogging. It’s not something defined by any one group.

  58. “mike: true, but blogging is being defined by the ones at the top of the lists, mostly professional journalists and committees, er, companies run as groups.”

    Somewhat of an inconsequential topic to discuss/argue about, but here goes :-)

    To me, blogging is a) hard to define, b) certainly not defined by anyone at the top of anything, and c) it is what it is.

    Meaning that all of us who blog define blogging. It’s not something defined by any one group.

  59. “mike: true, but blogging is being defined by the ones at the top of the lists, mostly professional journalists and committees, er, companies run as groups.”

    Somewhat of an inconsequential topic to discuss/argue about, but here goes :-)

    To me, blogging is a) hard to define, b) certainly not defined by anyone at the top of anything, and c) it is what it is.

    Meaning that all of us who blog define blogging. It’s not something defined by any one group.

  60. mike: I agree and disagree. Most people hear their definitions from the bigger media, or, even from their friends. If their friends are always saying “did you check out that Huffington Post blog?” or “did you see what TechCrunch’s bloggers did today?” then that defines them much more than what someone did on their blog that was aimed at a much smaller audience.

    It doesn’t matter, anyway. Twitter and FriendFeed are doing what blogging used to do and that is give everyday people a voice that can spread.

  61. mike: I agree and disagree. Most people hear their definitions from the bigger media, or, even from their friends. If their friends are always saying “did you check out that Huffington Post blog?” or “did you see what TechCrunch’s bloggers did today?” then that defines them much more than what someone did on their blog that was aimed at a much smaller audience.

    It doesn’t matter, anyway. Twitter and FriendFeed are doing what blogging used to do and that is give everyday people a voice that can spread.

  62. mike: I agree and disagree. Most people hear their definitions from the bigger media, or, even from their friends. If their friends are always saying “did you check out that Huffington Post blog?” or “did you see what TechCrunch’s bloggers did today?” then that defines them much more than what someone did on their blog that was aimed at a much smaller audience.

    It doesn’t matter, anyway. Twitter and FriendFeed are doing what blogging used to do and that is give everyday people a voice that can spread.

  63. I guess I should have come up with better examples. Yeah, beating the Russians was part of it, which makes it a bad example for this post. If I had editors that probably would have been pulled out before posting. I don’t, so the post isn’t perfect. :-)

  64. I guess I should have come up with better examples. Yeah, beating the Russians was part of it, which makes it a bad example for this post. If I had editors that probably would have been pulled out before posting. I don’t, so the post isn’t perfect. :-)

  65. I guess I should have come up with better examples. Yeah, beating the Russians was part of it, which makes it a bad example for this post. If I had editors that probably would have been pulled out before posting. I don’t, so the post isn’t perfect. :-)

  66. I think although some of Robert’s exampels weren’t the best ones to cite, don’t loose site of his points.

    Blogging has changed – no doubt, and ther is no way you can argue otherwise. And now we can’t put the Genie back in the bottle.

    Whenever a new technology hits a tipping point you are going to get the crowd effect and the initial vision of the technology changes.

    A prime example of this is Microsoft. Do you really think Bill Gates had his “PC on every desk” vision when IBM came calling? I don’t believe that public relations crap. He was building developer tools and had to go out and buy an OS to make the Basic sell work with IBM. And the genius of Gates is that once the money started comming in he realized he was in the front of a technology curve that could go way beyond his intial vision and his vision changed.

    So, yes, there are now professionals using the blogging technology that use to be so cool and only used by a small community. Isn’t that what bloggers wanted in the early years, for blogging to go mainstream? For after all, don’t the Pros validate the medium?

    The cool thing about blogging and the Internet is that I CHOOSE who I give my attention to. Blogging hasn’t changed for me and Robert, if you change the blogging style you use now you’ll most likely loose my attention and others, but you might pick up a wholly new audience.

    So the blogging community will continue to grow, but we will always have a choice of what community we mull around in.

  67. I think although some of Robert’s exampels weren’t the best ones to cite, don’t loose site of his points.

    Blogging has changed – no doubt, and ther is no way you can argue otherwise. And now we can’t put the Genie back in the bottle.

    Whenever a new technology hits a tipping point you are going to get the crowd effect and the initial vision of the technology changes.

    A prime example of this is Microsoft. Do you really think Bill Gates had his “PC on every desk” vision when IBM came calling? I don’t believe that public relations crap. He was building developer tools and had to go out and buy an OS to make the Basic sell work with IBM. And the genius of Gates is that once the money started comming in he realized he was in the front of a technology curve that could go way beyond his intial vision and his vision changed.

    So, yes, there are now professionals using the blogging technology that use to be so cool and only used by a small community. Isn’t that what bloggers wanted in the early years, for blogging to go mainstream? For after all, don’t the Pros validate the medium?

    The cool thing about blogging and the Internet is that I CHOOSE who I give my attention to. Blogging hasn’t changed for me and Robert, if you change the blogging style you use now you’ll most likely loose my attention and others, but you might pick up a wholly new audience.

    So the blogging community will continue to grow, but we will always have a choice of what community we mull around in.

  68. I think although some of Robert’s exampels weren’t the best ones to cite, don’t loose site of his points.

    Blogging has changed – no doubt, and ther is no way you can argue otherwise. And now we can’t put the Genie back in the bottle.

    Whenever a new technology hits a tipping point you are going to get the crowd effect and the initial vision of the technology changes.

    A prime example of this is Microsoft. Do you really think Bill Gates had his “PC on every desk” vision when IBM came calling? I don’t believe that public relations crap. He was building developer tools and had to go out and buy an OS to make the Basic sell work with IBM. And the genius of Gates is that once the money started comming in he realized he was in the front of a technology curve that could go way beyond his intial vision and his vision changed.

    So, yes, there are now professionals using the blogging technology that use to be so cool and only used by a small community. Isn’t that what bloggers wanted in the early years, for blogging to go mainstream? For after all, don’t the Pros validate the medium?

    The cool thing about blogging and the Internet is that I CHOOSE who I give my attention to. Blogging hasn’t changed for me and Robert, if you change the blogging style you use now you’ll most likely loose my attention and others, but you might pick up a wholly new audience.

    So the blogging community will continue to grow, but we will always have a choice of what community we mull around in.

  69. I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Robert.

    What I think Mike was trying to say is that many people are getting into the game with lofty goals and that VCs are seeing “blogging” (however you define it) as the “next big thing.” Mike sees the dangers in this.

    You have the luxury of Seagate following you, because let’s be honest, you’re unique and you draw an audience of not only niche people but a larger one as well. Me? I’d like to get there, not because I want to kill CNet, but because I feel like I have something to say that noone else is saying right, and that this is the right time, place, and medium.

    If anything, many of the “pros” bug me more and more because they sit around taking potshots at each other (*ahem*Valleywag*ahem*) without really focusing on anything interesting. At least you and Michael get inside places I’d love to see, and I can get into places many other people would like to see and talk about them from a unique perspective. If I couldn’t do that, I’d keep my damn fool mouth shut because I’d be just another voice.

    I do write about what I like. I’m not in it for the money. See any ads? If someone wants to help me out, I’d love it because it would mean I could do what I love. I spend alot more emotional energy at this than I do at my day job sometimes. I’d love for someone to make it easier for me to do what I enjoy. What’s so wrong with that?

    As for beating C|Net, I think Mike has an OK goal. He thinks enough good voices can bring down what has become a stagnant beast. Again, what’s the problem?

    I was in school back in 2001-2002. Why should I be held to that standard?

  70. I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Robert.

    What I think Mike was trying to say is that many people are getting into the game with lofty goals and that VCs are seeing “blogging” (however you define it) as the “next big thing.” Mike sees the dangers in this.

    You have the luxury of Seagate following you, because let’s be honest, you’re unique and you draw an audience of not only niche people but a larger one as well. Me? I’d like to get there, not because I want to kill CNet, but because I feel like I have something to say that noone else is saying right, and that this is the right time, place, and medium.

    If anything, many of the “pros” bug me more and more because they sit around taking potshots at each other (*ahem*Valleywag*ahem*) without really focusing on anything interesting. At least you and Michael get inside places I’d love to see, and I can get into places many other people would like to see and talk about them from a unique perspective. If I couldn’t do that, I’d keep my damn fool mouth shut because I’d be just another voice.

    I do write about what I like. I’m not in it for the money. See any ads? If someone wants to help me out, I’d love it because it would mean I could do what I love. I spend alot more emotional energy at this than I do at my day job sometimes. I’d love for someone to make it easier for me to do what I enjoy. What’s so wrong with that?

    As for beating C|Net, I think Mike has an OK goal. He thinks enough good voices can bring down what has become a stagnant beast. Again, what’s the problem?

    I was in school back in 2001-2002. Why should I be held to that standard?

  71. I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Robert.

    What I think Mike was trying to say is that many people are getting into the game with lofty goals and that VCs are seeing “blogging” (however you define it) as the “next big thing.” Mike sees the dangers in this.

    You have the luxury of Seagate following you, because let’s be honest, you’re unique and you draw an audience of not only niche people but a larger one as well. Me? I’d like to get there, not because I want to kill CNet, but because I feel like I have something to say that noone else is saying right, and that this is the right time, place, and medium.

    If anything, many of the “pros” bug me more and more because they sit around taking potshots at each other (*ahem*Valleywag*ahem*) without really focusing on anything interesting. At least you and Michael get inside places I’d love to see, and I can get into places many other people would like to see and talk about them from a unique perspective. If I couldn’t do that, I’d keep my damn fool mouth shut because I’d be just another voice.

    I do write about what I like. I’m not in it for the money. See any ads? If someone wants to help me out, I’d love it because it would mean I could do what I love. I spend alot more emotional energy at this than I do at my day job sometimes. I’d love for someone to make it easier for me to do what I enjoy. What’s so wrong with that?

    As for beating C|Net, I think Mike has an OK goal. He thinks enough good voices can bring down what has become a stagnant beast. Again, what’s the problem?

    I was in school back in 2001-2002. Why should I be held to that standard?

  72. Agree with your idea, but not your arguments:

    • we went to the moon to beat the Russians.
    • in Job’s biography he is quotes saying they built the Apple to beat IBM.
    • we went to war to beat the Axis powers, most notably Hitler.

    I agree with your thoughts on beating Cnet though… Bad focus.

  73. Agree with your idea, but not your arguments:

    • we went to the moon to beat the Russians.
    • in Job’s biography he is quotes saying they built the Apple to beat IBM.
    • we went to war to beat the Axis powers, most notably Hitler.

    I agree with your thoughts on beating Cnet though… Bad focus.

  74. Agree with your idea, but not your arguments:

    • we went to the moon to beat the Russians.
    • in Job’s biography he is quotes saying they built the Apple to beat IBM.
    • we went to war to beat the Axis powers, most notably Hitler.

    I agree with your thoughts on beating Cnet though… Bad focus.

  75. I don’t get why it’s the wrong goal. Techcrunch seized being a blog since it became a group-blog and started branching out—it became a news-network. Therefore it’s a logical decision to focus on other news-networks like CNET.

    Scobleizer, on the other hand, is a blog and that would be the wrong goal, I agree, requiring way too many resources. Same as other “ego”-blogs like Guy Kawasaki, Fred Wilson, and… Arrington’s personal blog.

  76. I don’t get why it’s the wrong goal. Techcrunch seized being a blog since it became a group-blog and started branching out—it became a news-network. Therefore it’s a logical decision to focus on other news-networks like CNET.

    Scobleizer, on the other hand, is a blog and that would be the wrong goal, I agree, requiring way too many resources. Same as other “ego”-blogs like Guy Kawasaki, Fred Wilson, and… Arrington’s personal blog.

  77. I don’t get why it’s the wrong goal. Techcrunch seized being a blog since it became a group-blog and started branching out—it became a news-network. Therefore it’s a logical decision to focus on other news-networks like CNET.

    Scobleizer, on the other hand, is a blog and that would be the wrong goal, I agree, requiring way too many resources. Same as other “ego”-blogs like Guy Kawasaki, Fred Wilson, and… Arrington’s personal blog.

  78. To each is own.

    Jobs is a futurist – he likes to bend the rules and doesn’t look to other companies for inspiration. Racing the competition isn’t something that makes Apple tick.

    Arrington is a bulldog. I mean that in the kindest way. He’s pushed, dragged and yanked TechCrunch to the top of the heap. He’s the kind of guy that loves to race and win.

    If I were at C|Net, I’d be worried.

  79. To each is own.

    Jobs is a futurist – he likes to bend the rules and doesn’t look to other companies for inspiration. Racing the competition isn’t something that makes Apple tick.

    Arrington is a bulldog. I mean that in the kindest way. He’s pushed, dragged and yanked TechCrunch to the top of the heap. He’s the kind of guy that loves to race and win.

    If I were at C|Net, I’d be worried.

  80. To each is own.

    Jobs is a futurist – he likes to bend the rules and doesn’t look to other companies for inspiration. Racing the competition isn’t something that makes Apple tick.

    Arrington is a bulldog. I mean that in the kindest way. He’s pushed, dragged and yanked TechCrunch to the top of the heap. He’s the kind of guy that loves to race and win.

    If I were at C|Net, I’d be worried.

  81. I recently have found an excellent way to filter blogs from media sites which just pretend to be blogs. It is very simple:

    If you have politics in in some of your blog post – you are probably independent blogger. I will read your stuff if they are interesting. If not – you are media and I don’t care about you AT ALL.

  82. I recently have found an excellent way to filter blogs from media sites which just pretend to be blogs. It is very simple:

    If you have politics in in some of your blog post – you are probably independent blogger. I will read your stuff if they are interesting. If not – you are media and I don’t care about you AT ALL.

  83. I recently have found an excellent way to filter blogs from media sites which just pretend to be blogs. It is very simple:

    If you have politics in in some of your blog post – you are probably independent blogger. I will read your stuff if they are interesting. If not – you are media and I don’t care about you AT ALL.

  84. “When blogging started getting rolling in 2001-2004…”

    Really? I recall it starting a lot earlier than that. There were a bunch of us early bloggers pushing it as a medium long before the money-grubbers decided to “monetize” it.

  85. “When blogging started getting rolling in 2001-2004…”

    Really? I recall it starting a lot earlier than that. There were a bunch of us early bloggers pushing it as a medium long before the money-grubbers decided to “monetize” it.

  86. “When blogging started getting rolling in 2001-2004…”

    Really? I recall it starting a lot earlier than that. There were a bunch of us early bloggers pushing it as a medium long before the money-grubbers decided to “monetize” it.

  87. Great post Robert! I have been reading you for a long time, so I understand your point and getting into why we did this or that is not necessary. The core of your post is what is important. Blogging has changed and you are right to point it out to everyone.

  88. Great post Robert! I have been reading you for a long time, so I understand your point and getting into why we did this or that is not necessary. The core of your post is what is important. Blogging has changed and you are right to point it out to everyone.

  89. [...] Here is self-important Scoble : Lately blogging seems like it has lost its way. Why? Well, looking at TechMeme you can see why: the professionals have taken over and have redefined what blogging is. They’ve (and I include myself in that, because now I’m part of a professional media organization) have taken blogging away from individual people and have corporatized it. When blogging started getting rolling in 2001-2004 (before Valleywag or TechCrunch) it was a small community [...]

  90. As of yesterday I’m blogging four years and did you know I’m the last blogger on DotnetJunkies and I still have more traffic and readers then Dr Dodds Journal and many other CMP Media sites.

    CMP Media owns DotnetJunkies now and they keep using it to pimp their other web properties, but I’m still on top.

  91. As of yesterday I’m blogging four years and did you know I’m the last blogger on DotnetJunkies and I still have more traffic and readers then Dr Dodds Journal and many other CMP Media sites.

    CMP Media owns DotnetJunkies now and they keep using it to pimp their other web properties, but I’m still on top.

  92. Since you mentioned the cluetrain manifesto… I work for a company (who will remain nameless) that is completely paralyzed by an overzelous legal department. Every project/product starts as not approved and stays that way for one arbitrary reason after another until you kiss up to the lawyers enough to have them approve it. Usually, you can’t even call a meeeting with the lawyers.

    Lawyers at large technology companies should treat the technologists as customers. It’s their job to enable innovation, not stifle it.

  93. Since you mentioned the cluetrain manifesto… I work for a company (who will remain nameless) that is completely paralyzed by an overzelous legal department. Every project/product starts as not approved and stays that way for one arbitrary reason after another until you kiss up to the lawyers enough to have them approve it. Usually, you can’t even call a meeeting with the lawyers.

    Lawyers at large technology companies should treat the technologists as customers. It’s their job to enable innovation, not stifle it.

  94. Since you mentioned the cluetrain manifesto… I work for a company (who will remain nameless) that is completely paralyzed by an overzelous legal department. Every project/product starts as not approved and stays that way for one arbitrary reason after another until you kiss up to the lawyers enough to have them approve it. Usually, you can’t even call a meeeting with the lawyers.

    Lawyers at large technology companies should treat the technologists as customers. It’s their job to enable innovation, not stifle it.

  95. Wow, I have to say this post is very inspirational. I agree, its not all about money, or fame. That doesn’t bring happiness or understanding.

    Thank you.

  96. Wow, I have to say this post is very inspirational. I agree, its not all about money, or fame. That doesn’t bring happiness or understanding.

    Thank you.

  97. Excellent rant Scoble! This very same thing was bugging me yesterday while reading Arrington’s post and I’m glad you were able to verbalize it like you did.
    If the goal of any group or individual is to beat another organization then all you will accomplish is just that. If you don’t strive to much much more than just that, then you will collapse as soon as you have accomplished the paltry goal you set yourself to accomlpish.

  98. Excellent rant Scoble! This very same thing was bugging me yesterday while reading Arrington’s post and I’m glad you were able to verbalize it like you did.
    If the goal of any group or individual is to beat another organization then all you will accomplish is just that. If you don’t strive to much much more than just that, then you will collapse as soon as you have accomplished the paltry goal you set yourself to accomlpish.

  99. Excellent rant Scoble! This very same thing was bugging me yesterday while reading Arrington’s post and I’m glad you were able to verbalize it like you did.
    If the goal of any group or individual is to beat another organization then all you will accomplish is just that. If you don’t strive to much much more than just that, then you will collapse as soon as you have accomplished the paltry goal you set yourself to accomlpish.

  100. Sooooo, Robert, you’re saying you don’t want to sign up on the Pequod and join Cap’n Ahabarrington’s Quest to take down the Great White Whale, Moby-Cnet?

    I left my comment on Arrington’s blog. My Spider Sense™ went off because the whole premise of his post was that TOO MUCH MONEY was a PROBLEM. (hmmm.) It did take me a couple of re-reads, but yeah, I eventually figured out his whole goal was to take down CNET, and the “problem” he invented to achieve his goal was that too many other good writers were going off and making independent deals for venture capital.

    His post originally generated a lot of positive comments because it was kind of a long and rambling rant, and at first take it seems like some kind of call for cooperation — let’s all work together! we can accomplish more if we cooperate than if we pursue our own separate interests! — full of positive imagery like a Dream Team of happy, smiling Negro youths.

    But then you dig a little bit deeper and you notice that the “fishing trip” boat seems to be decorated with a lot of whale bones and pointy harpoons and there seems to be a lot of what looks like dried blood caked up between the planks on the deck and the Cap’n (despite his being a Quaker) has this crazed, obsessional gleam in his eye and I thought you said this was going to be a fun adventure? And it really turns out to be a three-year trip to Hell via Davy Jones’ Locker involving almost no happy, smiling Negro youths whatsoever that makes the lone survivor write a harrowing novel that starts off with “Call me Ishmael.”

    The other thing that set off my BS detector was the way he was goading people into agreeing with him, telling them that if they went off on their own, they’d have to pay writers “market wages” (oh, the horror), that they might even want, you know, health insurance. And that if they didn’t sign up for the Pequod, they’d be left “alone and lonely” (his words), or “stuck out in the cold” (his words) eating thin gruel with all the other landlubbers, “taking life support payments from Federated Media” (his words) and, finally, “generally having an awful time.” (his words)

    So he’s dangling the carrot of UNTOLD RICHES in front of you, while beating you with the stick of NO ONE WILL LOVE YOU on your ass.

    The whole thing just drips with desperation, it’s the worst kind of “Always Be Closing,” used-car salesmanship.

    The worst part is that he’s not telling you anything about what he offers in return, other than “crushing CNET.” He’s telling you to give up your $3 – $5 million bird in the hand without even describing the birds in the bush.

    The sailors on the Pequod all had equity stakes, too, not that it mattered. To Cap’n Ahabarrington, it isn’t about the expected revenue from the whaling expedition, so much as it is about killing that damn’d whale.

    Arrrrrrr.

  101. Sooooo, Robert, you’re saying you don’t want to sign up on the Pequod and join Cap’n Ahabarrington’s Quest to take down the Great White Whale, Moby-Cnet?

    I left my comment on Arrington’s blog. My Spider Sense™ went off because the whole premise of his post was that TOO MUCH MONEY was a PROBLEM. (hmmm.) It did take me a couple of re-reads, but yeah, I eventually figured out his whole goal was to take down CNET, and the “problem” he invented to achieve his goal was that too many other good writers were going off and making independent deals for venture capital.

    His post originally generated a lot of positive comments because it was kind of a long and rambling rant, and at first take it seems like some kind of call for cooperation — let’s all work together! we can accomplish more if we cooperate than if we pursue our own separate interests! — full of positive imagery like a Dream Team of happy, smiling Negro youths.

    But then you dig a little bit deeper and you notice that the “fishing trip” boat seems to be decorated with a lot of whale bones and pointy harpoons and there seems to be a lot of what looks like dried blood caked up between the planks on the deck and the Cap’n (despite his being a Quaker) has this crazed, obsessional gleam in his eye and I thought you said this was going to be a fun adventure? And it really turns out to be a three-year trip to Hell via Davy Jones’ Locker involving almost no happy, smiling Negro youths whatsoever that makes the lone survivor write a harrowing novel that starts off with “Call me Ishmael.”

    The other thing that set off my BS detector was the way he was goading people into agreeing with him, telling them that if they went off on their own, they’d have to pay writers “market wages” (oh, the horror), that they might even want, you know, health insurance. And that if they didn’t sign up for the Pequod, they’d be left “alone and lonely” (his words), or “stuck out in the cold” (his words) eating thin gruel with all the other landlubbers, “taking life support payments from Federated Media” (his words) and, finally, “generally having an awful time.” (his words)

    So he’s dangling the carrot of UNTOLD RICHES in front of you, while beating you with the stick of NO ONE WILL LOVE YOU on your ass.

    The whole thing just drips with desperation, it’s the worst kind of “Always Be Closing,” used-car salesmanship.

    The worst part is that he’s not telling you anything about what he offers in return, other than “crushing CNET.” He’s telling you to give up your $3 – $5 million bird in the hand without even describing the birds in the bush.

    The sailors on the Pequod all had equity stakes, too, not that it mattered. To Cap’n Ahabarrington, it isn’t about the expected revenue from the whaling expedition, so much as it is about killing that damn’d whale.

    Arrrrrrr.

  102. Sooooo, Robert, you’re saying you don’t want to sign up on the Pequod and join Cap’n Ahabarrington’s Quest to take down the Great White Whale, Moby-Cnet?

    I left my comment on Arrington’s blog. My Spider Sense™ went off because the whole premise of his post was that TOO MUCH MONEY was a PROBLEM. (hmmm.) It did take me a couple of re-reads, but yeah, I eventually figured out his whole goal was to take down CNET, and the “problem” he invented to achieve his goal was that too many other good writers were going off and making independent deals for venture capital.

    His post originally generated a lot of positive comments because it was kind of a long and rambling rant, and at first take it seems like some kind of call for cooperation — let’s all work together! we can accomplish more if we cooperate than if we pursue our own separate interests! — full of positive imagery like a Dream Team of happy, smiling Negro youths.

    But then you dig a little bit deeper and you notice that the “fishing trip” boat seems to be decorated with a lot of whale bones and pointy harpoons and there seems to be a lot of what looks like dried blood caked up between the planks on the deck and the Cap’n (despite his being a Quaker) has this crazed, obsessional gleam in his eye and I thought you said this was going to be a fun adventure? And it really turns out to be a three-year trip to Hell via Davy Jones’ Locker involving almost no happy, smiling Negro youths whatsoever that makes the lone survivor write a harrowing novel that starts off with “Call me Ishmael.”

    The other thing that set off my BS detector was the way he was goading people into agreeing with him, telling them that if they went off on their own, they’d have to pay writers “market wages” (oh, the horror), that they might even want, you know, health insurance. And that if they didn’t sign up for the Pequod, they’d be left “alone and lonely” (his words), or “stuck out in the cold” (his words) eating thin gruel with all the other landlubbers, “taking life support payments from Federated Media” (his words) and, finally, “generally having an awful time.” (his words)

    So he’s dangling the carrot of UNTOLD RICHES in front of you, while beating you with the stick of NO ONE WILL LOVE YOU on your ass.

    The whole thing just drips with desperation, it’s the worst kind of “Always Be Closing,” used-car salesmanship.

    The worst part is that he’s not telling you anything about what he offers in return, other than “crushing CNET.” He’s telling you to give up your $3 – $5 million bird in the hand without even describing the birds in the bush.

    The sailors on the Pequod all had equity stakes, too, not that it mattered. To Cap’n Ahabarrington, it isn’t about the expected revenue from the whaling expedition, so much as it is about killing that damn’d whale.

    Arrrrrrr.

  103. Cameron: I said “when it started getting rolling.” When Dori Smith first told me about blogging it simply wasn’t “rolling.” Yes, you and a few hundred others were doing it, but it was 2001-2004 when it really started going and getting big, growing from a few hundred people to millions.

  104. Cameron: I said “when it started getting rolling.” When Dori Smith first told me about blogging it simply wasn’t “rolling.” Yes, you and a few hundred others were doing it, but it was 2001-2004 when it really started going and getting big, growing from a few hundred people to millions.

  105. Cameron: I said “when it started getting rolling.” When Dori Smith first told me about blogging it simply wasn’t “rolling.” Yes, you and a few hundred others were doing it, but it was 2001-2004 when it really started going and getting big, growing from a few hundred people to millions.

  106. I agree totally. Rather like the fact that I’m not creating ‘phreadz’ to compete or beat seesmic.
    I am simply creating a system which does the things I want – primarily to stay in (asynchronous) contact with my fiancee (on the other side of the planet) and my friends – among other ‘social things’
    :D

    ‘Web System Symbiosis’ is the key imho. :)

  107. I agree totally. Rather like the fact that I’m not creating ‘phreadz’ to compete or beat seesmic.
    I am simply creating a system which does the things I want – primarily to stay in (asynchronous) contact with my fiancee (on the other side of the planet) and my friends – among other ‘social things’
    :D

    ‘Web System Symbiosis’ is the key imho. :)

  108. I agree totally. Rather like the fact that I’m not creating ‘phreadz’ to compete or beat seesmic.
    I am simply creating a system which does the things I want – primarily to stay in (asynchronous) contact with my fiancee (on the other side of the planet) and my friends – among other ‘social things’
    :D

    ‘Web System Symbiosis’ is the key imho. :)

  109. Mike Arrington’s dream team has wrong goal (Scobleizer)

    “Lately blogging seems like it has lost its way. The professionals have taken over and have redefined what blogging is”

  110. Robert, Arrington is talking about Blogging as a business… You still see blogging as a hobby or as another way to communicate to people who have common interest you share.

    I think I said it earlier, YOU CHOOSE the level of engagement and attention you give to any blog.

    I actually like Arrington’s business attitude. He wants to win and there’s nothing wrong with winning as long as it is done on the up and up.

    And don’t tell me you haven’t cashed in on your blogging expertise. Arrington just has a desire for a bigger piece of the pie!

  111. Robert, Arrington is talking about Blogging as a business… You still see blogging as a hobby or as another way to communicate to people who have common interest you share.

    I think I said it earlier, YOU CHOOSE the level of engagement and attention you give to any blog.

    I actually like Arrington’s business attitude. He wants to win and there’s nothing wrong with winning as long as it is done on the up and up.

    And don’t tell me you haven’t cashed in on your blogging expertise. Arrington just has a desire for a bigger piece of the pie!

  112. Robert, Arrington is talking about Blogging as a business… You still see blogging as a hobby or as another way to communicate to people who have common interest you share.

    I think I said it earlier, YOU CHOOSE the level of engagement and attention you give to any blog.

    I actually like Arrington’s business attitude. He wants to win and there’s nothing wrong with winning as long as it is done on the up and up.

    And don’t tell me you haven’t cashed in on your blogging expertise. Arrington just has a desire for a bigger piece of the pie!

  113. Herschel: I like Mike’s business attitude too. The guy is a genius and I’ve been in awe of him ever since I linked to him (he says I was among the first to link to him).

    But, yes, I am still chasing the high we had back in 2001, before anyone had any idea this could be a business.

  114. Herschel: I like Mike’s business attitude too. The guy is a genius and I’ve been in awe of him ever since I linked to him (he says I was among the first to link to him).

    But, yes, I am still chasing the high we had back in 2001, before anyone had any idea this could be a business.

  115. Herschel: I like Mike’s business attitude too. The guy is a genius and I’ve been in awe of him ever since I linked to him (he says I was among the first to link to him).

    But, yes, I am still chasing the high we had back in 2001, before anyone had any idea this could be a business.

  116. “We didn’t go into World War II to beat Hilter. No, we went into it to protect our principles.”
    You went into WWII to snatch a piece of the world, when it became clear, that big boys had all been busy fighting in the other hemisphere (2 years into the fight). Which was, indeed, protecting any State’s principles. Not that it matters for understanding your post, but your examples are awkward.

  117. “We didn’t go into World War II to beat Hilter. No, we went into it to protect our principles.”
    You went into WWII to snatch a piece of the world, when it became clear, that big boys had all been busy fighting in the other hemisphere (2 years into the fight). Which was, indeed, protecting any State’s principles. Not that it matters for understanding your post, but your examples are awkward.

  118. “We didn’t go into World War II to beat Hilter. No, we went into it to protect our principles.”
    You went into WWII to snatch a piece of the world, when it became clear, that big boys had all been busy fighting in the other hemisphere (2 years into the fight). Which was, indeed, protecting any State’s principles. Not that it matters for understanding your post, but your examples are awkward.

  119. Nail. Head. You hit it, well done Robert. I couldn’t figure out what bugged me (besides Mike encouraging others not to raise funding while we all know he’s doing just that) about the post… And yeah, that’s it. It’s not even a business thing like taking advantage of economies of scale by centralizing resources …

    It’s just “let’s beat CNET”. And that bugs me for all the same reasons it bugs you. Growing the company, growing the industry, showing off what blogs can do vs the mainstream media, empowering writers… all of those are totally fine, but just to beat a single company?

  120. Nail. Head. You hit it, well done Robert. I couldn’t figure out what bugged me (besides Mike encouraging others not to raise funding while we all know he’s doing just that) about the post… And yeah, that’s it. It’s not even a business thing like taking advantage of economies of scale by centralizing resources …

    It’s just “let’s beat CNET”. And that bugs me for all the same reasons it bugs you. Growing the company, growing the industry, showing off what blogs can do vs the mainstream media, empowering writers… all of those are totally fine, but just to beat a single company?

  121. Nail. Head. You hit it, well done Robert. I couldn’t figure out what bugged me (besides Mike encouraging others not to raise funding while we all know he’s doing just that) about the post… And yeah, that’s it. It’s not even a business thing like taking advantage of economies of scale by centralizing resources …

    It’s just “let’s beat CNET”. And that bugs me for all the same reasons it bugs you. Growing the company, growing the industry, showing off what blogs can do vs the mainstream media, empowering writers… all of those are totally fine, but just to beat a single company?

  122. hats off to arrington for getting you to click on that silly post. kara swisher has it right. check out her take (sorry, i’m too lazy to get the URL). how much more time are you dweebs going to waste on this self-absorbed drivel? oh, by the way, get over your cnet envy/hate/whatever. it’s more than childish.

  123. hats off to arrington for getting you to click on that silly post. kara swisher has it right. check out her take (sorry, i’m too lazy to get the URL). how much more time are you dweebs going to waste on this self-absorbed drivel? oh, by the way, get over your cnet envy/hate/whatever. it’s more than childish.

  124. hats off to arrington for getting you to click on that silly post. kara swisher has it right. check out her take (sorry, i’m too lazy to get the URL). how much more time are you dweebs going to waste on this self-absorbed drivel? oh, by the way, get over your cnet envy/hate/whatever. it’s more than childish.

  125. Lemme guess, you went to a govt school for your primary education? I knew our schools were bad nut not THAT bad. In every one of your historical analogies you take the wrong side. Re. Read a history book once and stop relying on Wikipedia as your reference source. You also take a very narrow view of blogging. It’s not the sole domain of dweebs. The majority of the feeds I read are not tech focused. There are sports and political blogs. Not written by committee that would put your hit numbers to shame.

    I’m also having trouble sorting out your argument. Didn’t fastcompany also want to try to mpbitize your blog by running “subtle” ads on it?

  126. Lemme guess, you went to a govt school for your primary education? I knew our schools were bad nut not THAT bad. In every one of your historical analogies you take the wrong side. Re. Read a history book once and stop relying on Wikipedia as your reference source. You also take a very narrow view of blogging. It’s not the sole domain of dweebs. The majority of the feeds I read are not tech focused. There are sports and political blogs. Not written by committee that would put your hit numbers to shame.

    I’m also having trouble sorting out your argument. Didn’t fastcompany also want to try to mpbitize your blog by running “subtle” ads on it?

  127. Lemme guess, you went to a govt school for your primary education? I knew our schools were bad nut not THAT bad. In every one of your historical analogies you take the wrong side. Re. Read a history book once and stop relying on Wikipedia as your reference source. You also take a very narrow view of blogging. It’s not the sole domain of dweebs. The majority of the feeds I read are not tech focused. There are sports and political blogs. Not written by committee that would put your hit numbers to shame.

    I’m also having trouble sorting out your argument. Didn’t fastcompany also want to try to mpbitize your blog by running “subtle” ads on it?

  128. Michael: no, that’s not what I said or meant. But anyone who claims that blogging was “rolling” before 2001 just isn’t really playing history well.

    It’d be like saying today that FriendFeed was rolling before last week. Yeah, there were people using it (I have been watching/using it for quite a few weeks already) but last week is when it got TechCrunched and the numbers started growing. The thing is, FriendFeed isn’t where blogging got to in 2004, which is when TechCrunch started up. Then blogging went to millions of blogs. That’s when I think it really started “rolling.”

  129. Michael: no, that’s not what I said or meant. But anyone who claims that blogging was “rolling” before 2001 just isn’t really playing history well.

    It’d be like saying today that FriendFeed was rolling before last week. Yeah, there were people using it (I have been watching/using it for quite a few weeks already) but last week is when it got TechCrunched and the numbers started growing. The thing is, FriendFeed isn’t where blogging got to in 2004, which is when TechCrunch started up. Then blogging went to millions of blogs. That’s when I think it really started “rolling.”

  130. Michael: no, that’s not what I said or meant. But anyone who claims that blogging was “rolling” before 2001 just isn’t really playing history well.

    It’d be like saying today that FriendFeed was rolling before last week. Yeah, there were people using it (I have been watching/using it for quite a few weeks already) but last week is when it got TechCrunched and the numbers started growing. The thing is, FriendFeed isn’t where blogging got to in 2004, which is when TechCrunch started up. Then blogging went to millions of blogs. That’s when I think it really started “rolling.”

  131. Steve: yes, I know that Paris Hilton can get more hits by filming a sex video. But what does that prove?

    And, maybe my reading of history is wrong. So skip over those three sentences.

  132. Steve: yes, I know that Paris Hilton can get more hits by filming a sex video. But what does that prove?

    And, maybe my reading of history is wrong. So skip over those three sentences.

  133. Steve: yes, I know that Paris Hilton can get more hits by filming a sex video. But what does that prove?

    And, maybe my reading of history is wrong. So skip over those three sentences.

  134. Not to pile on, but just to testify. It was called “the moon race” for a reason.

    Kennedy’s speech gave it higher purpose. And most of those who participated did it for that higher purpose.

    But the funding didn’t come from higher purpose… it came from the fact that the Russians just might get there first. If we were so committed to exploration, NASA budgets wouldn’t have languished. We’d have a lunar base right now just like the late Arthur C. Clarke imagined.

  135. Not to pile on, but just to testify. It was called “the moon race” for a reason.

    Kennedy’s speech gave it higher purpose. And most of those who participated did it for that higher purpose.

    But the funding didn’t come from higher purpose… it came from the fact that the Russians just might get there first. If we were so committed to exploration, NASA budgets wouldn’t have languished. We’d have a lunar base right now just like the late Arthur C. Clarke imagined.

  136. Not to pile on, but just to testify. It was called “the moon race” for a reason.

    Kennedy’s speech gave it higher purpose. And most of those who participated did it for that higher purpose.

    But the funding didn’t come from higher purpose… it came from the fact that the Russians just might get there first. If we were so committed to exploration, NASA budgets wouldn’t have languished. We’d have a lunar base right now just like the late Arthur C. Clarke imagined.

  137. Wow, it is amazing how many commenters get fixated on the analogy as opposed to the idea you are trying to convey. I think it is a great rant. The only things I disagree with are:

    No corporation has taken blogging away from me or any of my friends. We certainly can do and say whatever we want.

    And access? Well, those leaders you allude to may be out out there using community tools, but it does not necessarily mean that they are responding to everyone. You maybe, but not everyone. There is still a velvet rope and always will be. There must otherwise it gets overwhelming. Of course, your point is that it can potentially be easier and faster; that there are direct lines of access. Maybe. Certainly quicker than writing a letter but not always as effective.

    Last thing: if Arrington’s motivation to beat CNET leads to something worthwhile then what does it matter? No one gets hurt really. And apparently competition gets him out of bed in the morning. And in the end, do you really believe that is his only goal?

  138. Wow, it is amazing how many commenters get fixated on the analogy as opposed to the idea you are trying to convey. I think it is a great rant. The only things I disagree with are:

    No corporation has taken blogging away from me or any of my friends. We certainly can do and say whatever we want.

    And access? Well, those leaders you allude to may be out out there using community tools, but it does not necessarily mean that they are responding to everyone. You maybe, but not everyone. There is still a velvet rope and always will be. There must otherwise it gets overwhelming. Of course, your point is that it can potentially be easier and faster; that there are direct lines of access. Maybe. Certainly quicker than writing a letter but not always as effective.

    Last thing: if Arrington’s motivation to beat CNET leads to something worthwhile then what does it matter? No one gets hurt really. And apparently competition gets him out of bed in the morning. And in the end, do you really believe that is his only goal?

  139. Wow, it is amazing how many commenters get fixated on the analogy as opposed to the idea you are trying to convey. I think it is a great rant. The only things I disagree with are:

    No corporation has taken blogging away from me or any of my friends. We certainly can do and say whatever we want.

    And access? Well, those leaders you allude to may be out out there using community tools, but it does not necessarily mean that they are responding to everyone. You maybe, but not everyone. There is still a velvet rope and always will be. There must otherwise it gets overwhelming. Of course, your point is that it can potentially be easier and faster; that there are direct lines of access. Maybe. Certainly quicker than writing a letter but not always as effective.

    Last thing: if Arrington’s motivation to beat CNET leads to something worthwhile then what does it matter? No one gets hurt really. And apparently competition gets him out of bed in the morning. And in the end, do you really believe that is his only goal?

  140. @58. That reinforces my point even more. I’m sure fast company has a larger goal and vision by wanting to place ads ok your blog

    I never mentioned celebrity blogs (although thebes gotta be some busines reason wesmircj any ballnug are linked off of techneme) so not sure why you went there. My point is there is a lot of money on the table beyond dweeb blogs.

    Ad data setting a goal to be the top dog does this ring a bell? “a computer on every desk and every home running microsoft software” that company was pretty small when they set taut goal

  141. @58. That reinforces my point even more. I’m sure fast company has a larger goal and vision by wanting to place ads ok your blog

    I never mentioned celebrity blogs (although thebes gotta be some busines reason wesmircj any ballnug are linked off of techneme) so not sure why you went there. My point is there is a lot of money on the table beyond dweeb blogs.

    Ad data setting a goal to be the top dog does this ring a bell? “a computer on every desk and every home running microsoft software” that company was pretty small when they set taut goal

  142. @58. That reinforces my point even more. I’m sure fast company has a larger goal and vision by wanting to place ads ok your blog

    I never mentioned celebrity blogs (although thebes gotta be some busines reason wesmircj any ballnug are linked off of techneme) so not sure why you went there. My point is there is a lot of money on the table beyond dweeb blogs.

    Ad data setting a goal to be the top dog does this ring a bell? “a computer on every desk and every home running microsoft software” that company was pretty small when they set taut goal

  143. Robert, I think, despite the nitpicking of others, your historical assessment is essentially true and reaches far beyond just blogging. The moon mission, as some have pointed out, cannot be detached from the politics of it’s era, but to see it was only ‘Us vs. Them’ is both wrong and paints a rather petty, and inaccurate, view of our country. If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.
    Hate and the need to dominate may offer short bursts of energy or small sparks to light fires, but they can’t ‘sustain’ them. Pettiness and small-thinking have never, as far as I know, led to anything but petty and small outcomes.

  144. Robert, I think, despite the nitpicking of others, your historical assessment is essentially true and reaches far beyond just blogging. The moon mission, as some have pointed out, cannot be detached from the politics of it’s era, but to see it was only ‘Us vs. Them’ is both wrong and paints a rather petty, and inaccurate, view of our country. If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.
    Hate and the need to dominate may offer short bursts of energy or small sparks to light fires, but they can’t ‘sustain’ them. Pettiness and small-thinking have never, as far as I know, led to anything but petty and small outcomes.

  145. Robert, I think, despite the nitpicking of others, your historical assessment is essentially true and reaches far beyond just blogging. The moon mission, as some have pointed out, cannot be detached from the politics of it’s era, but to see it was only ‘Us vs. Them’ is both wrong and paints a rather petty, and inaccurate, view of our country. If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.
    Hate and the need to dominate may offer short bursts of energy or small sparks to light fires, but they can’t ‘sustain’ them. Pettiness and small-thinking have never, as far as I know, led to anything but petty and small outcomes.

  146. @64 Not so amazing. An important lesson in communication: don’t add noise into your own signal. You want to make a point, make it. Don’t embellish it with flawed analogies. If you put stones on a path, people will trip. Keep the path clear.

  147. @64 Not so amazing. An important lesson in communication: don’t add noise into your own signal. You want to make a point, make it. Don’t embellish it with flawed analogies. If you put stones on a path, people will trip. Keep the path clear.

  148. @64 Not so amazing. An important lesson in communication: don’t add noise into your own signal. You want to make a point, make it. Don’t embellish it with flawed analogies. If you put stones on a path, people will trip. Keep the path clear.

  149. I think individual bloggers put a lot of importance on the community. I think corporations see everyone as either a competitor or a client, and a community is just a marketplace to leverage.

    In other words, blogging your passion and how to create a self-sufficient community is a lot different from blogging about how you’re going to kill the competition. And that it the disconnect between bloggers and corporates, no matter who you work for or what your goals are.

  150. I think individual bloggers put a lot of importance on the community. I think corporations see everyone as either a competitor or a client, and a community is just a marketplace to leverage.

    In other words, blogging your passion and how to create a self-sufficient community is a lot different from blogging about how you’re going to kill the competition. And that it the disconnect between bloggers and corporates, no matter who you work for or what your goals are.

  151. I think individual bloggers put a lot of importance on the community. I think corporations see everyone as either a competitor or a client, and a community is just a marketplace to leverage.

    In other words, blogging your passion and how to create a self-sufficient community is a lot different from blogging about how you’re going to kill the competition. And that it the disconnect between bloggers and corporates, no matter who you work for or what your goals are.

  152. “We didn’t go to the moon to beat the Russians. ”

    Thin on history yet again kid. Don’t believe everything you hear in YouTube Kennedy clips.

    Buff up on the military uses of space as well.

    Seek out “Command of the Commons” to start.

    Google up.

  153. “We didn’t go to the moon to beat the Russians. ”

    Thin on history yet again kid. Don’t believe everything you hear in YouTube Kennedy clips.

    Buff up on the military uses of space as well.

    Seek out “Command of the Commons” to start.

    Google up.

  154. “We didn’t go to the moon to beat the Russians. ”

    Thin on history yet again kid. Don’t believe everything you hear in YouTube Kennedy clips.

    Buff up on the military uses of space as well.

    Seek out “Command of the Commons” to start.

    Google up.

  155. Arrington is a pseudo-journalist. He and the TechCrunch team hide behind the “blog” label so as to not be challenged when they post rumor-driven, un-researched, fluff. But, they want to be treated like media royalty and given the same respect and weight as typical media outlets.

    If you’re a blogger, you can get away with posting your opinions as fact. If you’re CNET, then you cannot because you have certain commonly-accepted “journalistic standards.” Arrington/TechCrunch wants the best of both worlds, but don’t have standards so they hold up the “blogger” label whenever it’s convenient for their immediate purpose.

  156. Arrington is a pseudo-journalist. He and the TechCrunch team hide behind the “blog” label so as to not be challenged when they post rumor-driven, un-researched, fluff. But, they want to be treated like media royalty and given the same respect and weight as typical media outlets.

    If you’re a blogger, you can get away with posting your opinions as fact. If you’re CNET, then you cannot because you have certain commonly-accepted “journalistic standards.” Arrington/TechCrunch wants the best of both worlds, but don’t have standards so they hold up the “blogger” label whenever it’s convenient for their immediate purpose.

  157. Arrington is a pseudo-journalist. He and the TechCrunch team hide behind the “blog” label so as to not be challenged when they post rumor-driven, un-researched, fluff. But, they want to be treated like media royalty and given the same respect and weight as typical media outlets.

    If you’re a blogger, you can get away with posting your opinions as fact. If you’re CNET, then you cannot because you have certain commonly-accepted “journalistic standards.” Arrington/TechCrunch wants the best of both worlds, but don’t have standards so they hold up the “blogger” label whenever it’s convenient for their immediate purpose.

  158. First, let me thank you for giving us an enjoyable, inspiring and thoughtful post. Second, I will go out on a limb here, as my point of view is a bit narrow at this moment, and comment.

    Blogging around the world seems to be (loosely) following the same pattern you described. Most of the spanish-based blogs I read thrive on fun first and foremost, while social and intellectual concerns come next.

    However, I think the profesionalization of spanish-based blogging veers away from the pattern: it looks like corporate interest is negative rather than positive and, I think, bloggers as a group are learning from the experiences you describe. If that is true, it’s another example of the power of building the systems you point out in item 3.

    Finally, I believe that most people and thus most entrerprises (in the sense of embarking in new ventures) don’t have clear goals even if they say so. Most of the time initial goals are just attempts to pin down the feelings that motivate us to move into the unknown, not fixed references that define the journey.

  159. First, let me thank you for giving us an enjoyable, inspiring and thoughtful post. Second, I will go out on a limb here, as my point of view is a bit narrow at this moment, and comment.

    Blogging around the world seems to be (loosely) following the same pattern you described. Most of the spanish-based blogs I read thrive on fun first and foremost, while social and intellectual concerns come next.

    However, I think the profesionalization of spanish-based blogging veers away from the pattern: it looks like corporate interest is negative rather than positive and, I think, bloggers as a group are learning from the experiences you describe. If that is true, it’s another example of the power of building the systems you point out in item 3.

    Finally, I believe that most people and thus most entrerprises (in the sense of embarking in new ventures) don’t have clear goals even if they say so. Most of the time initial goals are just attempts to pin down the feelings that motivate us to move into the unknown, not fixed references that define the journey.

  160. Robert, I’ve been reading your blog for a long time and have to say this is one of the best posts you’ve ever written imho. Real wisdom and perspective here from someone who’s been around a long time (so far as blogging years are concerned).

    To all your final points, I say “YES!” I’m all about building community and having a higher purpose than just making money. I’ve yet to see a hearse with a U-Haul in-tow behind it.

  161. Robert, I’ve been reading your blog for a long time and have to say this is one of the best posts you’ve ever written imho. Real wisdom and perspective here from someone who’s been around a long time (so far as blogging years are concerned).

    To all your final points, I say “YES!” I’m all about building community and having a higher purpose than just making money. I’ve yet to see a hearse with a U-Haul in-tow behind it.

  162. “Wozniak and Jobs didn’t start Apple to beat IBM. No, they wanted a personal computer for themselves and their friends”

    Wozniak maybe, I’m not convinced that was Jobs motivation. There is a man who competes on every level.

    Blogging hasn’t lost its way, there’s just more of it and like with everything else, the bigger names attract more attention. Livejournal, which is a community, is still thriving.

  163. “Wozniak and Jobs didn’t start Apple to beat IBM. No, they wanted a personal computer for themselves and their friends”

    Wozniak maybe, I’m not convinced that was Jobs motivation. There is a man who competes on every level.

    Blogging hasn’t lost its way, there’s just more of it and like with everything else, the bigger names attract more attention. Livejournal, which is a community, is still thriving.

  164. Why does CNET have such a big audience? They review products that aren’t exclusive to early adopters. I can find reviews of crappy phones and the latest and greatest phone. The only reviews CNET offers on software are on Office and anti-viral software that the majority of computer users need. It doesn’t bother to appeal to industry geeks.

    The average person does’t find the need to live the iPhone hugging, Twirling, Seeismic channeled existence that TechCrunch readers crave. They just want a phone that will allow them to text Jason Castro into American Idol rock stardom and a camera that won’t screw up their vacation pics. Where do they go? CNET.

    TechCrunch can cover the latest and greatest cars or those cool Japanese robots, and every other product that appeals to the kind of person who just has to be the first to have, know and do everything tech. CNET is a different beast entirely. Arrington would either have to create another site entirely (which is not a bad idea) or destroy what makes TechCrunch cool to compete with its mass appeal.

    So there’s your mission: come up with another site that my 72-year-old dad can frequent when he needs to buy a new digital camera, and then let him know it’s out there. I don’t even know why Michael Arrington worries about CNET.

  165. Why does CNET have such a big audience? They review products that aren’t exclusive to early adopters. I can find reviews of crappy phones and the latest and greatest phone. The only reviews CNET offers on software are on Office and anti-viral software that the majority of computer users need. It doesn’t bother to appeal to industry geeks.

    The average person does’t find the need to live the iPhone hugging, Twirling, Seeismic channeled existence that TechCrunch readers crave. They just want a phone that will allow them to text Jason Castro into American Idol rock stardom and a camera that won’t screw up their vacation pics. Where do they go? CNET.

    TechCrunch can cover the latest and greatest cars or those cool Japanese robots, and every other product that appeals to the kind of person who just has to be the first to have, know and do everything tech. CNET is a different beast entirely. Arrington would either have to create another site entirely (which is not a bad idea) or destroy what makes TechCrunch cool to compete with its mass appeal.

    So there’s your mission: come up with another site that my 72-year-old dad can frequent when he needs to buy a new digital camera, and then let him know it’s out there. I don’t even know why Michael Arrington worries about CNET.

  166. @Seth: perhaps it tells us something else: if you want to market an idea, to get people to wake up at 6 a.m. in the morning, is to wrap up your idea in a warm bigger-purpose blanket – even if what you’re thinking is: “shit, the Russians beat us into space, where can we go to trump that?”

  167. @Seth: perhaps it tells us something else: if you want to market an idea, to get people to wake up at 6 a.m. in the morning, is to wrap up your idea in a warm bigger-purpose blanket – even if what you’re thinking is: “shit, the Russians beat us into space, where can we go to trump that?”

  168. Hmmm…do you need another comment on this post? Not only do I agree with you and love you for posting it and wading through the comments on it, but I believe blogging as a standalone business will ultimately not make it, because the MSM turns on blogs daily. BUT blogging can 1)bring you new friends/contacts, 2)start world-changing movements, 3)call out despotic governments, 4)expose criminals, 5)build bridges, and 6)educate people. That should be enough value for a single activity.

  169. Hmmm…do you need another comment on this post? Not only do I agree with you and love you for posting it and wading through the comments on it, but I believe blogging as a standalone business will ultimately not make it, because the MSM turns on blogs daily. BUT blogging can 1)bring you new friends/contacts, 2)start world-changing movements, 3)call out despotic governments, 4)expose criminals, 5)build bridges, and 6)educate people. That should be enough value for a single activity.

  170. I like the idea of building something and not tearing things down. It’s hard to build something innovative or new that will grow because it has value but it’s a noble calling to try.

  171. I like the idea of building something and not tearing things down. It’s hard to build something innovative or new that will grow because it has value but it’s a noble calling to try.

  172. I didn’t read every comment, but I haven’t read any that caught onto your comments about being laid off. That is the core of why blogging is where it is today, and why it has become professional.

    Tech blogging exploded because it was boosted by laid-off people WITH ACCESS. This is an important point. Laid-off people no longer have a conflict of interest, but they still have a PDA (going back a few years, here) full of contacts, friends they made along the way in the industry. That’s a very important point that seems to have been missed. Unless, you have a contact, a friend of a friend, you’re not going to get the product demos, or see the term sheets, or confirm a rumor. That’s why blogging became professional – the people with access got real stories, and that led to higher page views, which led to higher bandwidth and hosting costs, which led to advertising, which led to hiring staff to maintain the level of information flow needed to generate even higher page views.

    The only way blogging will return to the way it was would be another significant bust. Otherwise, it will continue along the current path of becoming traditional media.

    And by the way, were you serious when you asked why the government didn’t prevent the boom/bust cycle? Private companies, private capital, poor business plans, overspending, poor execution – what does the government have to do with any of that?

  173. I didn’t read every comment, but I haven’t read any that caught onto your comments about being laid off. That is the core of why blogging is where it is today, and why it has become professional.

    Tech blogging exploded because it was boosted by laid-off people WITH ACCESS. This is an important point. Laid-off people no longer have a conflict of interest, but they still have a PDA (going back a few years, here) full of contacts, friends they made along the way in the industry. That’s a very important point that seems to have been missed. Unless, you have a contact, a friend of a friend, you’re not going to get the product demos, or see the term sheets, or confirm a rumor. That’s why blogging became professional – the people with access got real stories, and that led to higher page views, which led to higher bandwidth and hosting costs, which led to advertising, which led to hiring staff to maintain the level of information flow needed to generate even higher page views.

    The only way blogging will return to the way it was would be another significant bust. Otherwise, it will continue along the current path of becoming traditional media.

    And by the way, were you serious when you asked why the government didn’t prevent the boom/bust cycle? Private companies, private capital, poor business plans, overspending, poor execution – what does the government have to do with any of that?

  174. Scoble, you are incredibly narcissistic and shallow. Your self-inclusion in geekdom does a disservice to geeks. You clearly fail to grasp the most elementary aspects of major historical events, and you conflate your station in life with an important linkage to important moments in our shared contemporary history. Your self-serving blog is absolutely nothing more than mental and emotional masturbation. You contribute nothing to the larger dialog and zeitgeist, and that is why other sites have soared while yours has stagnated.

  175. Scoble, you are incredibly narcissistic and shallow. Your self-inclusion in geekdom does a disservice to geeks. You clearly fail to grasp the most elementary aspects of major historical events, and you conflate your station in life with an important linkage to important moments in our shared contemporary history. Your self-serving blog is absolutely nothing more than mental and emotional masturbation. You contribute nothing to the larger dialog and zeitgeist, and that is why other sites have soared while yours has stagnated.

  176. We didn’t build Hubble to beat the Chinese? Please, Scoble.

    You may be right on that point, but we did build Hubble to beat the Moldovan Space Periscope, which would have been able to literally see around the curve of the universe and zoom in on the back of our head. Twice.

  177. We didn’t build Hubble to beat the Chinese? Please, Scoble.

    You may be right on that point, but we did build Hubble to beat the Moldovan Space Periscope, which would have been able to literally see around the curve of the universe and zoom in on the back of our head. Twice.

  178. ™”If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.”

    With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. Conversely if Kennedy had said “Let’s go to the Moon, THAT would have been dead on arrival, because people wouldn’t have seen the purpose. You have to factor in what was going on in the world. Economically, militarily, socially, we HAD to get there before the Soviets. Otherwise, we would likely still have a wall up in Berlin, among other things. It would have set the US back on a number of levels. Had we not focused on getting to the moon in such a relatively short period of time, I’m guessing today we’d be waiting another 10 years for an iPhone and other technology we take for granted today.

  179. ™”If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.”

    With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. Conversely if Kennedy had said “Let’s go to the Moon, THAT would have been dead on arrival, because people wouldn’t have seen the purpose. You have to factor in what was going on in the world. Economically, militarily, socially, we HAD to get there before the Soviets. Otherwise, we would likely still have a wall up in Berlin, among other things. It would have set the US back on a number of levels. Had we not focused on getting to the moon in such a relatively short period of time, I’m guessing today we’d be waiting another 10 years for an iPhone and other technology we take for granted today.

  180. ™”If Kennedy had said “Let’s go beat some Commies!” we would have had a space program whose only ardent supporters would have been the John Birch Society. Was there an underlying need to get there before ‘them’? Sure. But if sold that way it would have been dead on arrival.”

    With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. Conversely if Kennedy had said “Let’s go to the Moon, THAT would have been dead on arrival, because people wouldn’t have seen the purpose. You have to factor in what was going on in the world. Economically, militarily, socially, we HAD to get there before the Soviets. Otherwise, we would likely still have a wall up in Berlin, among other things. It would have set the US back on a number of levels. Had we not focused on getting to the moon in such a relatively short period of time, I’m guessing today we’d be waiting another 10 years for an iPhone and other technology we take for granted today.

  181. Toyota’s motto was: Beat GM. Simple. And effective. An internal motto like “Beat CNET” is quite effective because it leads TechCrunch to become better than CNET in everything CNET does by benchmarking them.

    I agree that Beat CNET shouldn’t be the only goal. They should have a bigger vision than that. But it is a good internal motto to have to build motivation.

  182. Toyota’s motto was: Beat GM. Simple. And effective. An internal motto like “Beat CNET” is quite effective because it leads TechCrunch to become better than CNET in everything CNET does by benchmarking them.

    I agree that Beat CNET shouldn’t be the only goal. They should have a bigger vision than that. But it is a good internal motto to have to build motivation.

  183. Toyota’s motto was: Beat GM. Simple. And effective. An internal motto like “Beat CNET” is quite effective because it leads TechCrunch to become better than CNET in everything CNET does by benchmarking them.

    I agree that Beat CNET shouldn’t be the only goal. They should have a bigger vision than that. But it is a good internal motto to have to build motivation.

  184. @95 You mean the same site that says: “(Ford, at that time, had a hired army complete with spies which would invade workers’ homes to make sure they were living as good Christians, and beat them if they were suspected of union sympathies or were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.)” Yeah! Right.

    Be that as it may, if their motto has since changed, it’s likely because they achieved their original goal in beating GM.

  185. @95 You mean the same site that says: “(Ford, at that time, had a hired army complete with spies which would invade workers’ homes to make sure they were living as good Christians, and beat them if they were suspected of union sympathies or were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.)” Yeah! Right.

    Be that as it may, if their motto has since changed, it’s likely because they achieved their original goal in beating GM.

  186. Yes, that’s all good, it’s very noble and inspiring, but then, well, CNET does need to die, too.

  187. Yes, that’s all good, it’s very noble and inspiring, but then, well, CNET does need to die, too.

  188. “That is well said,” replied Candide, “but we must cultivate our garden”.

  189. “That is well said,” replied Candide, “but we must cultivate our garden”.

  190. “That is well said,” replied Candide, “but we must cultivate our garden”.

  191. Hi Robert,

    S’funny – really liked your post. The stuff about the evolution of bloggers and the tiered system that has sort of developed over the years.

    I hosted a table for bloggers at a recent SpinVox event in the UK and one of the ‘bloggers’ was slightly put out as she ‘normally’ got invited along to things as PRESS.

    When does a blogger become a journalist?

    What typifies and defines ‘a’ blog?

    Stuff I’m kicking around internally at SpinVox HQ and also over at SMSTextNews.com.

    The editor there, Ewan Macleod just posted this article about how valuable his time is at CTIA next week.

    Thought you might like to read it – raises some interesting points.. similar to (but not the same as) the ones that you talk about.

    http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/03/on_blogs_advertising_buying_coverage_independence_and_ctia.html

    Cheers,

    James.

  192. Hi Robert,

    S’funny – really liked your post. The stuff about the evolution of bloggers and the tiered system that has sort of developed over the years.

    I hosted a table for bloggers at a recent SpinVox event in the UK and one of the ‘bloggers’ was slightly put out as she ‘normally’ got invited along to things as PRESS.

    When does a blogger become a journalist?

    What typifies and defines ‘a’ blog?

    Stuff I’m kicking around internally at SpinVox HQ and also over at SMSTextNews.com.

    The editor there, Ewan Macleod just posted this article about how valuable his time is at CTIA next week.

    Thought you might like to read it – raises some interesting points.. similar to (but not the same as) the ones that you talk about.

    http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/03/on_blogs_advertising_buying_coverage_independence_and_ctia.html

    Cheers,

    James.

  193. Hi Robert,

    S’funny – really liked your post. The stuff about the evolution of bloggers and the tiered system that has sort of developed over the years.

    I hosted a table for bloggers at a recent SpinVox event in the UK and one of the ‘bloggers’ was slightly put out as she ‘normally’ got invited along to things as PRESS.

    When does a blogger become a journalist?

    What typifies and defines ‘a’ blog?

    Stuff I’m kicking around internally at SpinVox HQ and also over at SMSTextNews.com.

    The editor there, Ewan Macleod just posted this article about how valuable his time is at CTIA next week.

    Thought you might like to read it – raises some interesting points.. similar to (but not the same as) the ones that you talk about.

    http://www.smstextnews.com/2008/03/on_blogs_advertising_buying_coverage_independence_and_ctia.html

    Cheers,

    James.

  194. “You mean the same site that says: “(Ford, at that time, had a hired army complete with spies which would invade workers’ homes to make sure they were living as good Christians, and beat them if they were suspected of union sympathies or were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.)” Yeah! Right.”

    What, you have a problem with reality? Look up “ford thugs beat workers” and you find:

    http://www.hfmgv.org/rouge/history2.asp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/books/review/04LOWRYL.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/F/Ford,%20Henry&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
    http://books.google.com/books?id=rpY562-RAzIC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=ford+thugs+beat+workers&source=web&ots=fw0ZKXHr8W&sig=6sL8jQBmEz9_wRwIaJMFQ-5YZJ4&hl=en#PPA169,M1

    It’s not hard to find such things. It’s hard to find people who don’t idolize the man Hitler credited with creating the ideas behind Nazism (in Mein Kampf if you ever feel like looking it up.)

  195. “You mean the same site that says: “(Ford, at that time, had a hired army complete with spies which would invade workers’ homes to make sure they were living as good Christians, and beat them if they were suspected of union sympathies or were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.)” Yeah! Right.”

    What, you have a problem with reality? Look up “ford thugs beat workers” and you find:

    http://www.hfmgv.org/rouge/history2.asp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/books/review/04LOWRYL.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/F/Ford,%20Henry&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
    http://books.google.com/books?id=rpY562-RAzIC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=ford+thugs+beat+workers&source=web&ots=fw0ZKXHr8W&sig=6sL8jQBmEz9_wRwIaJMFQ-5YZJ4&hl=en#PPA169,M1

    It’s not hard to find such things. It’s hard to find people who don’t idolize the man Hitler credited with creating the ideas behind Nazism (in Mein Kampf if you ever feel like looking it up.)

  196. “You mean the same site that says: “(Ford, at that time, had a hired army complete with spies which would invade workers’ homes to make sure they were living as good Christians, and beat them if they were suspected of union sympathies or were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.)” Yeah! Right.”

    What, you have a problem with reality? Look up “ford thugs beat workers” and you find:

    http://www.hfmgv.org/rouge/history2.asp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/books/review/04LOWRYL.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/F/Ford,%20Henry&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
    http://books.google.com/books?id=rpY562-RAzIC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=ford+thugs+beat+workers&source=web&ots=fw0ZKXHr8W&sig=6sL8jQBmEz9_wRwIaJMFQ-5YZJ4&hl=en#PPA169,M1

    It’s not hard to find such things. It’s hard to find people who don’t idolize the man Hitler credited with creating the ideas behind Nazism (in Mein Kampf if you ever feel like looking it up.)